Another quite different tyranid approach

Then I feel I'd have liked more those earlier versions. I really don't think the current ones are unplayable at all; they just don't taste like real tyranids when playing.

Quote:

We've just hashed out a new set of special rules, and we're not looking to rewrite them at the moment. Sorry if they don't meet your expectations, but this is the direction we're going in for now.

That's fine then. It was worth of trying and they can still be considered in a future, so they are there for anybody who wants to work on them.

After my first experimental games with the lists, my main point is: FEARLESS RULE IS SOMETHING YOU USE WHEN YOU'RE RETREATING FROM A COMBAT. it doesn't represent Tyranid spirit as far as I feel it. Having that rule can make the army work, but not the way they've usually been seen working. Indeed, having to add the rule you're already assuming you're going to lose quite many combats if you're putting that rule there, which I don't feel it's a good starting point for the thought. Staying in a combat until you die or kill (or both), that's way more representative.

I guess then:

- In leviathan_v3 I'll keep shooting and holding to my superior resistance, avoiding assault most of the time, with some support to control further table: that's your better chance of survival. Hopefully Harridans will be enough to disuade the aeroplanes (unlikely) and take some distant point. Fearless stays, so use it as much as you can, just in case (you'll need it to run and the opponent will feel that can't kill you: you can't kill him much, but he won't be able to kill you either).

- In v10 probably lots of harridans, trygons everywhere to withstand, and run like hell to take as many zones as you can until you see some unit without firefight support which you can hopefully munch with the trygons (risking them to casualties or you'll lose combat by gaunts again). Assault and let gaunts die in combat in between, so you can perform triple moves with assault actions (this is so odd of a tyranid style). No shooting AVs in the units: they are to snipeable, quite expensive and give you BMs. Maybe some shooting unit in garrison (exocrines, cause dactylis in garrison are to costly), just to be a threat, and cry for the aeroplanes of the enemy, cause they have to be independent if you want them in garrison (everything synapse moves too much). Fearless stays, so use it as much as you can, just in case (you'll need it to run and the opponent will feel that can't kill you: you can't kill him much, but he won't be able to kill you either).

Doesn't look very tyranid from my prospective, but it is what it is.

Now that I've taken the point, I'll start putting as detailed battle reports as possible whenever I play with tyranids. We'll see how they look like (however I'm turned not to play to often: they get a bit depressing as you're most of the time the receiving and not the hitting part).

After my first experimental games with the lists, my main point is: FEARLESS RULE IS SOMETHING YOU USE WHEN YOU'RE RETREATING FROM A COMBAT.

this is not accurate, you use the fearless rule when you are losing a combat, but being fearless allows you not to run away or even advance with this move and end you movement so close to your enemy that you can assault him next turn (provided you rally on a 2+ roll). think of nyds losing batle and still advancing trying to assault their enemies... (kill or die) does that sound more as you think nyds should work?

Let me rephrase; We're interested in what slight changes you'd make to the current special rules, but we're not looking to start again from scratch.

I definitely understand it: it has to be a hell of a job to do a good army book, and after the job the team has taken lately, it's normal it's tested for a while.

Just knowing it could be regarded later is good news. I might work more intensively on the idea to see how does it work.

Quote:

this is not accurate, you use the fearless rule when you are losing a combat, but being fearless allows you not to run away or even advance with this move and end you movement so close to your enemy that you can assault him next turn (provided you rally on a 2+ roll). think of nyds losing batle and still advancing trying to assault their enemies... (kill or die) does that sound more as you think nyds should work?

No, it doesn't. You can assault him on the next turn, and he will still be able to firefight you with little response, you cant take back gaunts cause youre broken (-1d3) and you're to less than 30cm of the enemy if you stay (-1d3, so 0d3 if you're not a dominatrix, synapse node or tervigon).

The thing is they shouldn't even move or have the option to move from where they were: they should stay there and fight. Marines have "feel no fear", they lose combat as a "tactic retreat", move back, shoot, charge back and with time and effort win. I can see even eldars (harlequins?) doing that, but tyranids disengaging and re-engaging... not really (just lictors, and these ones specifically don't, as they aren't fearless).

Just knowing it could be regarded later is good news. I might work more intensively on the idea to see how does it work.

Elements of other designs will be considered at a later date, but I can tell you now that we won't be taking the list as radically away from the core rules as you want to do.

My advice is to take the existing special rules as a starting point and look for slight tweaks you could make to them. Developing an entirely new system is a bit of a waste of time, as it just isn't going to happen.

Right, no worries. I didn't think it would be such different in a second chance as per the comments seen, but having the idea of it there could already be inspiration enough.

Just remember I put two ideas, one quite simpler: going the inspiring way instead of the fearless way (both together is probably a break), seems to work in the table quite more like an unstoppable wave and would disuade firefight units from trying to have easy wins also. That's the one that I see way more implementable in the army: shot them; don't assault them... the tyranids are the ones that win the assaults.

tyranids disengaging and re-engaging... not really (just lictors, and these ones specifically don't, as they aren't fearless).

I see tyranids disengaging if a combat is really not going their way and/or for tactical benefit, why wouldn't they? I don't mean out of a sense of self-preservation of the individual creatures or anything, but if they retreat and re-group and return to fight later that would be better for the hive mind than them all staying and being slaughtered by overwhelming forces.

I just had a quick look at the Imperial Armour: Anphelion Project, depicting a war against tyranids. They attack in waves and do retreat. Your understanding of how tyranids fight is inaccurate.

I just had a quick look at the Imperial Armour: Anphelion Project, depicting a war against tyranids. They attack in waves and do retreat. Your understanding of how tyranids fight is inaccurate.

Anphelion is WH40K apocalypse (which I've played indeed several times): how can you retreat from a combat exactly with the tyranids in WH40K apocalypse (rules disallow)? You can't. It's always been like that. There could be an exception, but in most of the other invasion stories you will read tyranids push to death through a full journey, then stop (if they stop, cause they win by exhaustion and choking so many times) and retake a new wave (a totally different battle) the next journey (once they resupply the area). A single story marine can get down a carnifex... (try it). Exception s exist, but do we justify an army concept in exceptions?

One thing is a single story and the other some millions of games all over the world. Ask to any experienced tyranid player if he expects his tyranids to be retreating and coming back after a proper regroup and hear the answers. All the ones I know will agree on saying tyranids don't retreat (marines do, orks do, necrons do, eldars do, but tyranids don't: it's one of their remarkable differences).

Last edited by etriustremere on Sat Nov 26, 2011 3:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Our intention is to represent tyranids as close to the background as is possble within the epic ruleset, not to match the 40k playstyles.

Dewfinitely agree. As the source was from WH40K, I was going to it, but I'm including references to the whole picture in the rest. I can go to all my list of Tyranid codex (just as an example of source) and start pointing one by when how many stories reflect tyranids almost don't retreat and how many do... I don't think it will leave clearer the point.

That's the one that I see way more implementable in the army: shot them; don't assault them... the tyranids are the ones that win the assaults.

i dont fully agree with this, tyranids seem to attack once and again in endless swarms, losing many fights until they eventually brake their enemies... i dont see tyranids as an unbeateable swarm but as a tide that wears the enemy until they manage to win. also i see them winning easier in close combat, and that is not the same than assaults.being fearless allows nyds to attack once and again with the same formation doing more and more casualties in each attack until they win by attrition, being so resilient allows them not to suffer too many casualties themselves, and respawning also helps in this way. i still see some problems with the nyds list, but in my opinion fearless is the right way to go. i´ve read lots of fluff about nyd attacks, they are always repeled many times just to come back again and again until they win.also being fearless allows them not to suffer too many casualties from lost assaults, allowing them to fight back again next turn.

The Fearless-and-Brood style can work and be very unique. It means that non-fearless, non-brood creatures like biovores, harpies and zoanthropes have no place in "line swarms", but they work better in separate, dedicated formations anyway. Big gaunt swarms are also useless except as a "swarming reservoir".

Anyway, in my side the discussion is over, as we are speaking about the gender of the angels already.

The intention was to release another view of the tyranid army which people might like, so we could check if working on it is fine. There are two armies usable and they have things that can be exploited, even if they have my flavour or they haven't.

I'd rather keep on the discussion by gaming in the table and giving ggod feedback now that I start to see what works and what doesn't. Then I'll hold until I can post such reports.

The post is still open for anybody who wants to discuss it though (or try the proposed rules), so have a good time with it. I won't do it myself yet, as I don't think I have the experience as to balance points in a newly created experimental army.

Hmm i kind of agree. In all the background fluff i have read Tyranids attack and either win or die to the last creature only for a new wave/swarm to arrive and attack again.Tyranids are THE atrition army. Evenmore so than Orks. Orks willretreat after abeating, regroup and come back. Tyranids don't retreat. They atack relentlessly until the opposition breaks or they all die. At least as long as the Synapse network is working. If all Synapse creatures are dead the bigger creatures (hi Leadership to speak in Wh40k terms) and the "Hunters" will continue to attack while the "Lurkers" will go hiding and ambush from their hideyholes.

IF we want to simulate this then a Tyranid Swarm in an Assault won't break. The Assault would go on for several rounds with countercharges until the Swarm would be completely destroyed or win the Assault.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum